Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kan vi stole på test?
Guido MakranskySenior pychometrician: Master Management International
Ph.D. student: University of Twente, Holland
Overview
• What is faking/cheating? • How often do people fake/cheat?• When and who fakes/cheats?• Methods used to limit faking/cheating.• Methods used to catch fakers/cheaters.• Recommendations and best practice.
Prevalence of faking
• About 1 out of every 4 people fake in a high-stakes situation (Mccann et al., 2011)
• 45% of job applicants falsify work histories (Burke, 2009)
• About half of all college students report cheating on an exam (Cizek, 1999)
• Medical or neuropsychological conditions 20 to 40%• Personal injury cases 30%• Disability claims 30%
Examples of cheating tools
Examples of cheating tools
What is cheating?
• An attempt, by deception or fraudulent means, to represent oneself as possessing knowledge that one does not actually possess
(Cizek, 1999, p.3)
What is faking?
• Not considered faking• Impression management• Erroneous self-perception
• What is faking?• A behavior not a trait• Goal oriented• Results in an inaccurate impression• Faking is intentional behavior• Involves interaction of person and situation factors
• A person who fakes in one setting will not necessarily fake in all settings
• Not everyone will fake just because they have a reason to
Some correlates to faking/cheating
• Situational factors:• Knowledge of the job requirements• Knowledge of how the test will be used• Importance of the outcome
• Personal factors:• Age (Diekhoff; Graham and Haines)
• Lack of conscientiousness• Integrity• Emotional intelligence
• Other factors:• Culture
Methods used to limit faking
• Warnings• Feedback interviews• Test design • Verifiable responses
• “I take on extra work” vs. “How many hours of overtime did you perform last month?”
• Manipulations of item desirability• Forced choice tests
When there is no control cheating increases
• Cheating increases when:• Decreased level of surveillance by proctor (Covey et al., 1989)
• Unproctored examination (Sierles et al., 1988)
• Instructor leaving the room during testing (Steininger et al., 1964)
• Reduced supervision (Leming, 1978)
Traditional method to prevent cheating
• Proctoring• Instructors as proctors caught less
than 1% of cheaters (Fishbein, 1994)
• 1.3% of undergraduate cheaters are caught (Haines et al., 1986)
• 20% of professors ignored obvious cheating (Murray, 1996)
New methods to prevent cheating
• Remotely proctored testing stations
Test construction methods used to catch fakers
• Social desirability scales
• Bogus items
• Decision trees
Methods used to catch cheaters in maximum potential tests
• Statistical analyses• Item time• Collusion
New challenges
• Unproctored Internet delivered tests (UIT)• UIT accounts for the majority of individual
employment test administrations in the private sector
• Follow-up/confirmation tests• A confirmation test is a short computerized test given under
supervision to verify the result obtained in an online test
CAT Confirmation testing
• Max number of items: 8• Stops test after as few as: 3 items• Average test length 7 minutes (max 15)• Three possible results• UIT test result confirmed:
• New test recommended:
• UIT test result rejected:
Results
• 1000 job candidates • 100 of them cheated (cheating effect = 2 sd units).
Makransky and Glas (2010)
Result Honest Respondents Cheaters
855 5
45 50
0 45
Recommendations “Best practice” personality tests
1. Do not use social desirability scales2. Interpret scores cautiously when existing detection methods
suggest faking3. Implement strategies designed to minimize faking4. Test developers should consider implementing formal
processes to limit faking5. Use personality scales as a “screen-out” rather than a
“screen-in” tool
Recommendations from Ziegler et. al., 2011.
Recommendations “Best practice” maximum potential tests
1. Implement procedures to reduce the opportunity for cheating 2. Require applicants who obtain qualifying scores in an
unsupervised test to take a supervised test to confirm their scores • Check whether the test-taker’s scores are consistent• Inform test-takers in advance of these procedures
3. Provide test-takers with a list of expectations and consequences for fraudulent test taking practices, and require test-takers to accept
International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet Delivered Testing, 2005
